Featured Authors

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrews.

What Happens to Christian Theology if Evolution is True? BioLogos Basics Video #9

Today we release the ninth video in our BioLogos Basic Series. After considering some of the scientific evidence is the last several videos, we’ve circled back around to theology. What difference does the contemporary science of evolution make to our theology? Obviously there is some effect; theology is not done in a vacuum, hermetically sealed off from other ways God has endowed us to learn. But the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith are not threatened by the science of evolution. All human beings are created in the image of God, and all of us have sinned; we are saved through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. We consider, though, what evolutionary science does for traditional understandings of Adam and Eve and of death and suffering. These are not easy questions, and they force theologians to remain in conversation with scientists.

Our Common Question article on Death before the fall address the theological concern that animals died before there were humans on earth to sin.

The blog series "Evolution and Death" by BioLogos Senior Scholar Jeff Schloss responds to the question about suffering and death.

Script:

What happens to Christian theology if evolution is true? Perhaps the best way of exploring this question is keeping in mind that God is the author of both Scripture and the natural world, and so, ultimately, these can’t contradict each other. Of course in our human attempts to do theology and to do science, sometimes we get things wrong. That’s why we need a healthy conversation between the two, to help correct human error made along the way and so understand both Books better.

God’s book of Nature contains substantial evidence that the universe is old, that life developed over billions of years, and that humans are related to other life on earth though a common ancestor.

These discoveries have caused Christians to rethink how they understand some theological doctrines. But it is important to remember that the core doctrines of our faith are not at stake here. But discoveries in genetics do show that today’s human beings, did not descend from a single original couple, but rather from a group of early humans. Adam and Eve could still be real historical people, perhaps a pair chosen by God who represented the whole group in a first act of disobedience. Or perhaps the Adam and Eve account tells the story of all of us falling into sin. Either way, we know that every human has rebelled against God and is in need of reconciliation with God.

Evolution raises other difficult questions like, “why was there so much death and suffering in the world prior to human sin?” Some people point to Romans 5 and claim that there could not have been any death before human sin, and therefore evolution is wrong. But that passage is clearly speaking of human death. The more difficult question is why God would choose to create through a lengthy process that involves so much animal death and suffering. At one level, we suspect that like Job we’ll never fully understand the secret ways of God.

But keep in mind that while evolution raises some theological questions, in other ways it fits well with what we know of God’s character from the Bible:

God rarely acts swiftly, but seems to savor the process of creating over long periods of time.

God partners with creation in bringing about his goals, rather than doing everything directly himself.

God designed a process that favors cooperation and fosters moral development, such as greater parental care and altruism.

Of course this doesn’t clear up everything. There is a lot of hard work involved in theology’s conversation with evolution. At BioLogos, we’re committed to this work, sponsoring this important conversation. Why? What’s the point? We’ll address that in our final video in this series.

Notes

Citations

Stump, J. (2015, December 2). What Happens to Christian Theology if Evolution is True? BioLogos Basics Video #9Retrieved March 19, 2018, from /blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/what-happens-to-christian-theology-if-evolution-is-true-biologos-basics-video-9

About the Author

Jim Stump is Senior Editor at BioLogos. As such he oversees the development of new content and curates existing content for the website and print materials. Jim has a PhD in philosophy from Boston University and was formerly a philosophy professor and academic administrator. He has authored Science and Christianity: An Introduction to the Issues (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017) and edited Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Zondervan 2017). Other books he has co-authored or co-edited include: Christian Thought: A Historical Introduction (Routledge, 2010, 2016), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), How I Changed My Mind About Evolution (InterVarsity, 2016), and Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (InterVarsity, 2017).

"What kind of evidence would somebody need to have in order to be rationally compelled to say that an event was a miracle? That person would have to know that this event could not possibly be explained by future science. But not only is such a belief unwarranted, it’s also bad for future science to believe it."

These provocative words are written by Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson (a Christian), in an article that itself provoked some good discussion when we posted it last week.

Check out the full article (link in comments), and then respond to the quote above. Does calling something a "miracle" put it in danger of being debunked by future scientific advances? Is there a different way of thinking about the concept of a miracle, that might satisfy his concerns? Feel free to discuss below. ... See moreSee less

Hard for me to see that the Incarnation is not a miracle. For others , God could be working on a quantum level?? But does the latter fall into”God of the Gaps?”

5 hours ago · 1

Amen🌀 Jesus doesn't care about Alabama Crimson Tide 🏈 football. Instead, He loves 🌀 Spring and the start of ⚾ baseball season. That's why He started His own story, "In the Big inning..." Just watch 🌀 His wind-up! You need to start reading your 📖 Bible!

3 hours ago

One thing for sure, it is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

7 hours ago · 2

Great article. In answer to you question about a different way of thinking about miracles that would "satisfy his concern", to me it would make sense to explain a miracle in terms of something that everyone (religious and non-religious alike) would have no explanation for, given our current understanding of science.

Science will never describe the full expanse of reality. Science is not geared to that end. This is basic knowledge.
Reason is the handmaiden of faith because faith takes us where reason cannot go. As such, the only thing that will ever describe the fill expanse of reality is faith supernaturally given by God, i.e. God graciously enlightening the intellect. Reason gives way to faith because reason is limited in its capacity to describe reality.
This is not to say reason is not essential. It is the handmaiden of faith because it is a true and good servant to faith. As such faith and reason never contradict, but faith does transcend reason.

10 hours ago · 5

I'm tired of these types of questions constantly being proposed. It was not a scientist who discovered that dead human beings do not rise from the dead (which is different than Jesus resurrection) it was simple human experience. Therefore, the question is rather silly to ask. My first reply is to ask: who cares if Jesus resurrection contradicts science? My second reply is to make the observation that this question is phrased in such a way that science is presupposed as the final arbiter of truth claims like the resurrection of Jesus. Thirdly, how exactly could scientists study the resurrection of Jesus? Scripture tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead. Can science study this claim? Fourth, it would be one thing to subject the resurrection to some sort of scientific investigation ( I know not what or how) and a completely different thing to study what the resurrection of Jesus means for me or you personally. It seems Biologos is in need of some good theologians and philosophers to add to this conversation. Finally, this question smacks of a form of Evidentialism that would make faith subject to the vagarities of evidence. In the end I have to affirm that it matters little to me if the resurrection of Jesus did contradict science. On another note, one could ask: whose "science" and which scientists?

3 hours ago · 1

Exactly so.

11 hours ago · 1

Mmmmmm, I would say that a resurrection is contradictory to observed evidence, but that's fine. A God that is truly supernatural would act supernaturally at times. Although, I suppose God could whip up a truly natural Star Trek hypospray to overcome the decay process and relaunch the body's systems.